Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Sequestration – A Meaning Within a Definition

Sequestration… the first things I think of when I hear the
word sequestration is isolating a jury for deliberations. The other thing that
came to mind was deep sea drilling for oil and gas. So then I thought, exactly
how does sequestration apply to the federal budget? If I listen to the talking
heads on either side of the political spectrum all I can get from them is the
big ticket budgets that will be impacted by this sequestration… and what a disaster
it will be for this country and our economy. So, in my inquisitive style, I set
off on a journey of understanding. The following is what I found and, in my
mind, what I think it all means.

Marriam-Webster
defines sequestration (noun) as a legal
writ authorizing a sheriff or commissioner to take into custody the property of
a defendant who is in contempt until the orders of a court are complied with.
The secondary definition given is even more interesting… Sequestration (noun) – A deposit whereby a neutral depository agrees to
hold property in litigation and to restore it to the party to who it is
adjudged to belong. Read this definition and understand and recognize what
it is saying and what it means to you. Now, the Congressional Research Service
defines sequestration as "In
general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary
resources by a uniform percentage. Moreover, this uniform percentage reduction
is applied to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account. However,
the current sequestration procedures, as in previous iterations of such
procedures, provide for exemptions and special rules. That is, certain programs
and activities are exempt from sequestration, and certain other programs are
governed by special rules regarding the application of a sequester.”(http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/a/What-Is-Sequestration.htm)

So here I sit, dumbfounded, in front
of my computer. The Marriam-Webster identifies that the root of their
definition dates back to the 15th century.The Congressional Research Services’
definition, the best I can tell, only dates back to 1985 as part of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of that same year. Ok… let’s
see if I understand… the legislative and executive branches here act as the “commissioner
who takes into custody the property of a “defendant”…”? Further, once the
sequester kicks in, Congress or the Federal Government is the “neutral
depository” that will hold our property, or taxes dollars, and are required to
restore that property to who it is adjudged to belong? In my feeble mind, I
think I understand what the accepted definition of sequestration means.
However, because the citizenry of the United States cannot be left to try to
understand these complex things on our own, the Federal Government re-defines
sequestration as it applies to the federal budget. In perfect style, the Federal
Government has taken something pretty simple and managed to make it into
something so confusing that most Federal Courts cannot likely agree what this
definition really means.

One man’s opinion on sequestration
is this… I think it should happen. Before I get the rhetoric thrown back in my
face, let’s be clear on why I feel this will ultimately be good for the country.
But first let me be clear on this point… my position is born not of listening
to the liberal press’s pontifications or any right-wing talking-points. I tend
to look at the facts, or do my best to get to some semblance of truth to help
formulate a position. I also live by the creed “if you are not part of the
solution, you are part of the problem”, and this approach tends to make me more
honest and realistic when assessing problems and/or issue. But I digress… The
last 5+ years should be a wake-up call for the country. We have adopted policies during both the Bush
and Obama Administrations that have weaken the very foundations of our
financial systems. Obama’s reckless spending, aided by a mixed House and Senate
is leading us down a path of financial ruin not just as a nation, but as
individual citizens. As an individual who could potentially benefit from tax
increases on more wealthy Americans, I oppose the measure. Common sense kicks
in and it tells me that raising taxes on ANYONE at this stage is bad for
everyone! The answer in not to spend ourselves out of recession. Ask Japan how
that approach served them?

Look, I favor a strong defense
personally, but the military industrial complex is bloated, wasteful, and
downright inefficient. The cuts that will go into effect as part of the
sequestration are actually pretty timely. Sure, it is going to hurt for a
little while, but we will survive. Think of it the same way we do our own
household budgets. You might think it sucks giving up cable television because
you cannot afford it, but over time, you may actually grow not to miss it at
all, maybe rediscover music, and spend more time talking to your family members?
You see, Congress and the President want us all to believe that they are making
the right decisions for us. I think we all know that is questionable at best. The
spending on both the Federal and State levels is disastrously out of control.
There is no motivation or commitment to control spending. Government sees the
only viable option is to raise taxes. This is a counter-intuitive approach and
is grounds alone to send these folks back to civilian life so that they may
have even an ever so slight taste of the pain we are all going through.

I want to circle back to one last
point as it relates to the Marriam-Webster definition of sequestration. Again, Sequestration (noun) – A deposit whereby a
neutral depository agrees to hold property in litigation and to restore it to
the party to who it is adjudged to belong. This begs the question, if these
cuts go into effect, what should be done with the proceeds of these spending cuts?
To me, it is very simple… deficit reduction or tax cuts. Congress and the
President need to restore this property back to the party who it SHOULD BE
adjudged to belong, which are the American people. I’m going to throw out a
suggestion since many families are starting to plan their summer vacations…
take that money, or money from tax returns, and pay down your personal debt. I
am not saying don’t go on vacation; just go to Lake George instead of Myrtle
Beach or Disney World. Conceptually, Congress and the President need to do the
same thing. President Obama, pay for your last vacation before you plan for
your next vacation!

So, I will tell you that tomorrow
night when the clock strikes 12 midnight, don’t be worried that sequestration
is in motion… be thankful! The Federal Government needs to look at the problem
for what it is and not run around looking for someone to blame, whether it be
the past administration, their colleagues, or wealthy people. This will be the
first step in the direction of
correction. We will realize that, although it hurts, we will be better for
it later. Don’t let the talking heads on the radio and television scare you… we
will survive because we have to and because we are America, and that’s what we
do! Happy Reading!

Actually the deficit has been halved since Obama took over. My question is, "Given that the deficit is already down by half, why is the emphasis not on job creation?" You have to read a bit beyond the retail press to find this information but the government budget office backs up my statement. All the hoo haw about the deficit is just that, so much hoo haw.